Core Post #5 (Week 7 Readings)

When reading King’s essay and arguments about the ways actors perform, it made me think a lot about actors today and what sets them apart from one another and what makes us respect and appreciate certain ones over others. What makes a star versus a celebrity? Or do the two come hand in hand? In some cases, I think that longevity of a career can establish an actor as talented, if not on screen, than at least in the way he or she has chosen film roles. However, I think that it always comes down to how good of an actor that person is that really makes them a star. On the other hand, I think a celebrity can be someone who does not necessarily possess acting talent, but is intriguing to the press and the public. Thus, I believe that acting ability is really the basis of what makes a person a star rather than a celebrity. Of course, a star can always become a celebrity if that person is outgoing or interesting in the eyes of the public. As much as I can try to differentiate between the two terms though, I think the two have slowly become interchangeable, with some actors being more of one than the other. Take Meryl Streep for example, she is extremely talented, versatile, and has had an incredibly long career. She is, without a doubt, a star. However, with new media and technology now at the hands of paparazzi, online gossipers, and magazine editors, someone like Meryl Streep is now a celebrity. In the end, I think that the notion of a star has slowly faded from our culture. When I think of screen stars I think of Bette Davis, Marilyn Monroe, and Cary Grant. However, with our accessibility to today’s stars having escalated in the past decade, these stars are no longer untouchable as they may have been in the past. They are constantly interrupted with photographs and inquiries about their personal lives wherever they go. Whereas a star may have been someone we put on a pedestal fifty years ago, now stars have been taken down from that pedestal by our very selves. Maybe it is time that we come up with another word for the star/celebrity?

Also, unlike the old days when actors could play the same role over and over again (Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne), not as many actors are able to do that today because critics and the public have turned toward praising versatility instead. There are few remaining actors who always play the same character, and even those actors occasionally step outside of their comfort zone (Will Smith in action movies vs. Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness or Ali, Adam Sandler in comedies vs. Adam Sandler in Reign on Me, Harrison Ford in action movies vs. Harrison Ford in What Lies Beneath). I know people who have criticized these actors as ones that always play the same characters; however, we still love them. I think there is a certain amount of charisma and smarts needed to become one of those actors that can be so good at playing the same character that audiences will always pay $10 to come see their films. All these actors became famous for playing the same role in blockbuster films; however, with the rise of independent film, the “real” actors sacrifice a blockbuster or two to do a film that is “meaningful” and character driven.

Ultimately, all the readings made me think about how our view of what "good acting" is has changed a lot in the past few years. It is not always having a consistent and amazing performance in every film (few actors do, among them Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Johnny Depp), it is having the ability to change completely from film to film and tackle a variety of different characters. Actors can give an okay performance in a film, but still be praised for abandoning their comfort zone. It shows that an actor has emotional range and is willing to take career risks for the sake of their craft. Since there are so many stars/celebrities today, I think that actors choose to focus on the art of acting to set them apart and keep them from appearing shallow in the eyes of the media: they’re not famous for nothing. Lastly, as King states, "the 'real' personality of the actor should disappear into the part" (68). In the 1950s, that personality of the actor was that actor's onscreen character. Today, we have been taught to differentiate between the actor's personality and that of his/her onscreen character.

No longer is good acting creating a persona onscreen that resonates with audiences to the point where they believe you are that person (John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe). Today, audiences already know that these stars/celebrities are real people and they are now just waiting to see them become different people beyond their public personas. People may consider actors “bad” or not real actors if they play the same role instead of trying something new that displays their talent (examples may include Jessica Alba and Amanda Bynes. While Bynes has had a legitimate career, her films are slowly doing less box office perhaps because she is always playing the same goofy/lovable character). As I stated before, there are a few actors left who do play the same roles over and over again, but it is no longer a trend and their careers begun long ago. I don’t think an actor today could begin a career like that now. Therefore, I wonder, what created this shift? What made us start out loving actors who always played the same character roles to criticizing those that do the very same today? Why do actors have to suddenly prove their talent through their versatility in films?